Lil Durk’s legal team has claimed that the government’s case is based on the testimony of a paid FBI informant who has a criminal history. They say this informant is unreliable and that the case against Durk is weak. The lawyers argue that this is not enough to keep Durk in jail while he waits for trial.
Lil Durk, whose real name is Durk Banks, has been in custody at the Los Angeles Metropolitan Detention Center. He is facing charges related to an alleged murder-for-hire plot. His trial is scheduled to begin on October 14, 2025. His attorneys are trying to get him released on bond, but prosecutors have pushed back.
The defense says the FBI informant, known as “CHS 1,” is a former gang member who is being paid by the government. They argue that the prosecution has not provided enough evidence to prove Durk is a danger or a flight risk. They have proposed a $4.5 million bond package to support their request for his release.
Why does the defense say the FBI informant is not credible?
According to HipHopDX (May 13, 2025), Durk’s lead attorney, Drew Findling, said that the government is relying on a single source who cannot be trusted. The informant, referred to as “CHS 1,” is described in court records as a former gang member with a criminal past. The defense said this person has been paid by the FBI and has a reason to lie.
The defense also said the informant gave similar information in a separate federal case in Illinois. Durk was never charged in that case. The lawyers believe that using information from a case where Durk was not involved shows the government is stretching its case too far.
“The prosecution is leaning heavily on someone who has a lot to gain and little to lose,” said Findling in a court statement.
He added that using such testimony puts the whole case on shaky ground.
Read More: Why are so many music festivals getting canceled in the U.S.?
What bond package did Lil Durk’s legal team offer?

As reported by HotNewHipHop on May 15, 2025, Lil Durk’s legal team has offered a bond deal worth $4.5 million. This includes $3 million in Durk’s personal cash, extra money from his business partners, and real estate assets. They also offered to have Durk placed on 24/7 home confinement with security monitoring.
The defense says this bond package shows Durk is serious about following court orders if released. His lawyers believe this plan will keep the public safe and also let Durk prepare for his trial. They say it is a fair solution since the charges are still not proven.
However, the prosecution rejected the offer. As stated in XXL Magazine on May 16, 2025, government lawyers said that Durk has used his wealth in the past to influence others. They believe this makes him a threat and said the bond is not enough to guarantee public safety.
Read More: Who is Sommer Ray? All to know as TikTok star Mark Estes confirms relationship with model
What other claims have prosecutors made about Durk?

As reported by HipHopDX on May 17, 2025, prosecutors have accused Lil Durk of threatening witnesses while in jail. They claim he has tried to stop people from testifying. These accusations have not been proven in court. Durk’s lawyers say these claims are false and should not be used to decide his bond.
The defense said the witness's claims are “unrelated to bond eligibility.” They say no hard proof has been shown to support the idea that Durk has contacted or threatened any witness. They believe the prosecution is using these claims to paint Durk in a bad light before the trial.
The court has not yet ruled on these claims. The defense continues to argue that Lil Durk should be released since he has not been proven guilty and has offered strong conditions for release.
Read More: Why was VTuber Lucy Pyre banned on Twitch? Complete controversy explained
Lil Durk’s legal team has focused their defense on challenging the FBI informant’s credibility. They say the entire case is based on the word of a paid, former gang member who cannot be trusted. They have also offered a large bond and home monitoring to secure Durk’s release. Prosecutors have pushed back, citing concerns about witness safety and public risk.